Never Give In! (12 page)

‘THE MAINTENANCE OF NAVAL SUPREMACY IS OUR WHOLE FOUNDATION’

9 November 1911

The Lord Mayor’s Banquet, The Guildhall, London

Deteriorating relations between France and Germany, combined with a major expansion of the German Navy and the unexpected appearance of the German gunboat
Panther
off the Moroccan port of Agadir in July, prompted anxieties in London, Winston Churchill, who had circulated to Cabinet colleagues a remarkable and detailed memorandum entitled ‘Military Aspects of the Continental Problem’, was, in late October abruptly moved to the post of First Lord of the Admiralty, where for the next four years he would have full charge of the Royal Navy.

The navy is strong – we have got to keep it strong – (
loud and prolonged cheers
),
–
strong enough, that is, to use for all that it may have to do. And not only strong but ready, instantly ready, to put forth its greatest strength to the best possible advantage. . . . But here let me say a few words of the utmost plainness. Our naval preparations are necessarily based upon the naval preparations of other Powers. It would be affectation – and quite a futile kind of affectation – to pretend that the sudden and rapid growth of the German navy is not the main factor in our determination whether in regard to expenditure or new construction. To disguise this would be to do less than justice to the extraordinary and prodigious developments which have resulted from German energy and German science in recent years. It would further be foolish to deny the plain truth that naval competition between these two mighty Empires – who all the time have such enormous common interests, who all the time have no natural cause for quarrel – it would be foolish to deny that naval competition between them lies at the foot and in the background of almost every difficulty which has baffled the earnest efforts which are repeatedly made – and in which the city of London has taken a noble part – to arrive at really friendly feelings between the two countries. While that competition continues every element of distrust and unrest is warm and active, and one evil leads to another in a long and ugly concatenation. We are not so arrogant as to suppose that the blame and the error which follow so often on human footsteps lies wholly on one side. But the maintenance of naval supremacy is our whole foundation. Upon it stands not the Empire only, not merely the great commercial prosperity of our people, not merely a fine place in the world’s affairs. Upon our naval supremacy stands our lives and the freedom we have guarded for nearly a thousand years.

Next year the Navy Law – which when completed will give Germany a magnificent and formidable fleet, second only to our own – next year the law prescribes that the limit of expansion has been reached and that the annual quota of new ships added to the German navy will fall to a half the quota of recent years. Hitherto that law, as fixed by Parliament, has not been in any way exceeded, and I gladly bear witness to the fact that the statements of the German Ministers about it have been strictly borne out by events. Such is the state of affairs in the world that the mere observance of that law without an increase would come to Europe as a great and sensible relief. We should feel that heavy as naval expenditure will undoubtedly be, the high-water mark at any rate has been reached, and all over the world men would breathe more freely and the nations would enter upon a more trustful and more genial climate of opinion. In this we should readily associate ourselves; and if, on the other hand, my Lord Mayor, the already vast programmes of other Powers for war upon the sea should be swollen by the new and added expansions, that would be a matter of extreme regret to us and other States. But I am bound to say on behalf of His Majesty’s Government that of all the states and nations of the world Britain will be found the best able to bear the strain and the last to fail at the call of duty. – (
Cheers.
)

‘WHY SHOULD NOT IRELAND HAVE HER CHANCE?’

8 February 1912

Celtic Park Football Ground, Belfast

For more than a generation the ‘Irish Question’ had been a battleground that bedevilled and, not infrequently, dominated British politics, souring relations between the island of Ireland and the rest of the British Isles. The Liberal Government was determined to grant the Irish ‘Home Rule’ or self-government, with their own Parliament within the British Empire. Winston Churchill was a foremost proponent of this policy, while the fiercely Protestant Ulstermen of the north of Ireland were strenuously opposed to being placed under the rule of Catholic Dublin. Never shy of going into the lion’s den, Churchill – to the fury of the Protestants – addressed a crowd of over 5,000 in the Catholic area of Belfast. Feelings were running so high within the Protestant community that an entire battalion of the Brigade of Guards had to be deployed to ensure his safety.

I am glad to be with you today. Contact with Ireland is contact with history. And how can we tell that this great meeting which is assembled here under circumstances of such peculiar significance this afternoon may not in future years be looked back to as a beneficent landmark in Irish and in British history? (
Cheers.
) I come before you as the representative of a Government which for more than six years has directed the affairs of the State, which has presided over six years of peaceful progress and the six best years in trade which these islands have ever known, and a Government which has passed great legislation, which has had to deal with powerful antagonists, and which has usually succeeded in its undertakings. And I come to you on the eve of a Home Rule Bill. (
Loud and prolonged cheers,
) We intend to place before Parliament our plan for the better government of Ireland. It will be a plan harmonious with Imperial interests – (
hear
,
hear
),
–
and we are resolved that it shall be a plan creditable to its authors. (
Cheers.
) We do not desire to be responsible for the fortunes of a measure not seriously intended to become the law of the land. (
Hear
,
hear.
) We have consulted, and we shall consult fully, with the leaders of Irish public opinion, but the decision rests with us. The bill which we shall introduce, and I believe carry into law – (
cheers
),
–
will be a bill of a British Government designed to smooth the path of the British Empire, and liberate new forces for its services. (
Hear
,
hear.
) In making this clear we put no strain upon the confidence of our Irish friends. For more than twenty-five years Home Rule has been the adopted child of the Liberal party – (
cheers
),
–
and during a whole generation, in office and in Opposition, in good luck or in bad, Liberals have been taught by Mr Gladstone – (
cheers
)
–
to believe that the best solution of Irish difficulties lies in the establishment of an Irish Parliament with an Executive responsible to it – (
hear, hear
),
–
and every year the reasons upon which they have relied have been strengthened by new facts and by new experiences, and have marched forward with the general march of events. . . .

A settlement of the long quarrel between the British Government and the Irish people would be to the British Empire a boon and a blessing, a treasure-ship, a wonderful reinforcement, precious beyond compare. . . .

The main argument which all these years has sustained the Home Rule cause has been the continuous and unalterable demand of the Irish people, in an overwhelming majority, through every recognised channel of the national will, for the establishment of an Irish Legislature. The Irish claim has never been fairly treated by the statesmen of Great Britain. They have never tried to deal with Ireland in the spirit in which both great parties face the large problems of the British Empire. And yet, why should not Ireland have her chance? Why should not her venerable nationhood enjoy a recognised and respected existence? Why should not her own distinctive point of view obtain a complete expression? Why should the Empire, why should the world at large, be deprived of a new contribution to the sum of human effort? History and poetry, justice and good sense, alike demand that this race, gifted, virtuous, and brave, which has lived so long and has endured so much, should not, in view of her passionate desire, be left out of the family of nations, and should not be lost forever among the indiscriminated multitudes of men, – (
Cheers.
) What harm could Irish ideas and Irish sentiments and Irish dreams, if given their free play in the Irish Parliament, do to the strong structure of the British power? Would not the arrival of an Irish Parliament upon the brilliantly lighted stage of the modern world be an enrichment and an added glory to the treasures of the British Empire? – (
Cheers.
)
. . .

I appeal to Ulster to step forward with noble courage, and by a supreme act of generosity and public spirit to win the great prize of Irish peace for themselves and the world. I have been reminded often and again in the last few weeks of the words Lord Randolph Churchill used more than a quarter of a century ago. The reverence which I feel for his memory and the care with which I have studied his public life make me quite content to leave it to others to judge how far there is continuity between his work and any I have tried to do. I am sure the Liberal party will never become an instrument of injustice and of oppression to the Protestants of Ulster. I know this is a duty in which the people of Ulster must not fail. It is a task and a trust placed upon them in the name of Ireland, in the name of the British Empire, in the name of justice and goodwill to help us all to settle the Irish question wisely and well for ever now. There is the task which history has assigned to them, and it is in a different sense that I accept and repeat Lord Randolph Churchill’s words, ‘Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right.’ Let Ulster fight for the dignity and honour of Ireland. Let her fight for the reconciliation of races and for the forgiveness of ancient wrongs. Let her fight for the unity and consolidation of the British Empire. Let her fight for the spread of charity, tolerance, and enlightenment among men. Then, indeed, ‘Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right.’ – (
Loud cheers.
)

‘WE LIVE IN AN AGE OF INCIPIENT VIOLENCE’

18 March 1912

House of Commons

Churchill took to the Admiralty like a duck to water. Though barely three years before he had been conspiring with Lloyd George in Cabinet to cut back the Admiralty’s naval building programme, now that a German threat was evident, he threw himself into the task with relish, making sure that, should war come, the Navy would be ready. In this detailed and masterly speech, he proposes a ‘Naval holiday’ to Germany, undertaking that Great Britain would lay down no new ships if Germany did the same. If Germany continued building, Britain would outbuild her by 60 per cent each year.

I propose, with the permission of the House, to lay bare to them this afternoon, with perfect openness, the naval situation. It is necessary to do so mainly with reference to one Power, I regret that necessity, but nothing is to be gained by using indirect modes of expression. On the contrary, the Germans are a people of robust minds, whose strong and masculine sense and high courage does not recoil from, and is not offended by, plain and blunt statements of fact, if expressed with courtesy and sincerity. Anyway, I must discharge my duty to the House and the country. The time has come when both nations ought to understand, without ill-temper or disguise, what will be the conditions under which naval competition will be carried on during the next few years. The cost and strength of a navy depend upon two main things: first of all, there is the establishment of ships and men maintained in the various scales of commission; secondly, the rate and amount of new construction by which the existing fleets are renewed or augmented. An increase in the establishment of great Navies like the British and the German Navies does not involve such heavy additions to the annual expenditure as an increase in the new construction. On the other hand, the cost of increases in new construction is confined to the years in which it takes place and comes to an end with the completion of the ships, while increases in the number of men, although comparatively small so far as the cost is concerned in one year, involve charges in pay and pensions which recur year after year for a whole generation. . . .

We have no longer to contemplate as our greatest potential danger, the alliance, junction, and co-operation of two naval Powers of approximately equal strength, with all the weakness and uncertainty inherent in such combinations, but we have had for some time to consider the growth and development of a very powerful homogeneous Navy, manned and trained by the greatest organising people of the world, obeying the authority of a single Government, and concentrated within easy distance of our shores. . . . The actual standard in new construction – I am not speaking of men or establishment – which the Admiralty has, in fact, followed during recent years, has been to develop a 60 per cent superiority in vessels of the ‘Dreadnought’ type over the German navy on the basis of the existing Fleet Law. There are other and higher standards for the smaller vessels, with which I will not complicate the argument, as they do not greatly affect finance. . . .